It's one thing to speculate wildly about a phenomenon for which science is still searching for explanations. Déjà vu, for example, is one experience that virtually everyone shares, and for which no convincing explanation has yet been found. It's no wonder that it's fertile ground for people who prefer to ascribe such occurrences to the paranormal.
But in other cases, there is such a simple, convincing natural explanation that you have to wonder why the claimant isn't going there. Such, for example, is the suggestion over at the phenomenally bizarre quasi-religious site The Watchman's Cry that geographical locations on the Earth that have been the sites of disasters (natural or manmade) fall along connecting lines, making some sort of mystical, meaningful pattern.
The article starts out with a bang, with the phrase, "Several months ago, I had four prophetic dreams which took place on the same night." Four precognitive dreams is pretty impressive, I have to say, especially since most skeptics don't think precognition occurs at all. Be that as it may, these dreams involved train wrecks, which is ironic, because that is what the rest of the site turns out to be.
Both literally and figuratively.
The site goes into great detail about various train derailments, and how if you connect them by lines (great circles, to be more precise), those lines then go around the Earth and connect to other sites that have had bad things happen. These then intersect other such great circles, which go other interesting places, and so on.
It's just ley lines all over again, isn't it? If your search parameters are wide enough -- basically, "anywhere that anything bad has happened in the past two centuries" -- you can find great circles that link them up. Which is entirely unsurprising. I could draw a great circle anywhere on Earth and pretty much guarantee that I'll find three or more sites near it that had some kind of natural or manmade calamity in the past two centuries. The Earth is a big place, and there are lots of calamities to choose from.
But what gets me most about this guy is that he doesn't even seem to understand that given the fact that the Earth is a sphere (an oblate spheroid, to be precise, but let's not get technical), a given point on Earth has an infinite number of great circles passing through it. Just as two points on a plane define a line, two points on a sphere define a great circle. And his lack of grasp of simple geometry becomes apparent when he tells us that it's amazing that two intersecting great circles (ones connecting Houston, Texas to train derailment sites in Rosedale, Maryland and Bear Creek, Alabama, respectively) were "only 900 feet apart."
How can you say that two intersecting lines are any specific distance apart? If they intersect, they are (at that point) zero feet apart. Farther from the intersection, they are farther apart. Because that's how intersection works.
But the author of this site trumpets this statement as if it were some kind of epiphany. It's like being excited because you found a triangle that had three sides.
I'll leave you to explore the site on your own, if you're curious to see more of this false-pattern malarkey, but suffice it to say that there's nothing at all mystical going on here. He's adding geometry to coincidence and finding meaning, and it's no great surprise that it turns out to be the meaning he already believed going into it.
So like the ley lines people, this guy doesn't seem to be trying very hard to see if there's a natural explanation that sufficiently accounts for all of the facts, a tendency I have a hard time comprehending. Why are people attracted to this kind of hokum? Science itself is a grand, soaring vision, telling us that we are capable of understanding how the universe works, from the realm of the enormous to the realm of the unimaginably small. With a little work, you can find out the rules that govern everything from galaxies to quarks.
But that, apparently, isn't enough for some people.
Have any scientifically-minded friends who like to cook? Or maybe, you've wondered why some recipes are so flexible, and others have to be followed to the letter?
Do I have the book for you.
In Science and Cooking: Physics Meets Food, from Homemade to Haute Cuisine, by Michael Brenner, Pia Sörensen, and David Weitz, you find out why recipes work the way they do -- and not only how altering them (such as using oil versus margarine versus butter in cookies) will affect the outcome, but what's going on that makes it happen that way.
Along the way, you get to read interviews with today's top chefs, and to find out some of their favorite recipes for you to try out in your own kitchen. Full-color (and mouth-watering) illustrations are an added filigree, but the text by itself makes this book a must-have for anyone who enjoys cooking -- and wants to learn more about why it works the way it does.
[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]